We thought Sony was out of the woods on this one. We really did. After months of frequent rumors and a patent filing pointing to the possibility of used game-blocking technology on the PlayStation 4, Sony's head of worldwide studios Sheuhei Yoshida seemed to finally put the matter to rest by telling interviewers that used games would be playable on the system.

Now, new statements from another Sony executive have thrown Yoshida's supposed assurances into question. When NowGamer asked PlayStation UK Managing Director Fergal Gara to confirm reports of Yoshida's earlier "used games are OK" statements, his answer was a bit less than reassuring for potential PS4 buyers.

"Well, first of all, we haven't stated that second-hand games... we haven’t made a statement on the second-hand games question," Gara said. "The answer to the pre-owned question isn’t clarified just yet and we’re working through that and we’ll announce our position in more detail as and when we can."

It's very possible that this is just a case of one arm of Sony not knowing what the other is doing, of course. Gara may not have been fully informed about Yoshida's public statements and Sony Japan's position when he did his interview. It's also possible he was aware of Yoshida's loose lips and was working to walk back Sony's public position to a more neutral territory in order to temporarily appease publishers or lure Microsoft into revealing its used game plans.

But it's also somewhat possible that Gara's non-denial means there's more to Sony's position than it seems. When the story first broke last week, Yoshida was quoted as saying "used games can play on PS4," which is not quite the same as saying "every PS4 will play every used game disc without restriction" or something similar. When Ars' Casey Johnston sat down at a roundtable session with Yoshida the next day, he said that "when you purchase the disc-based games for PS4, that should work on any hardware." This seems like an even stronger statement of used game support, but it still leaves a bit of wiggle room. (Does that mean purchasing used games specifically? Also, note the "should" language).

More distressingly, when asked about online registration for used games, Yoshida said that the decision was up to individual publishers, and that Sony is "not talking about that plan" for its own first-party games.

Our best reading of the situation as it stands now, based on the crumbs we've received on the matter, is that the PlayStation 4 almost definitely won't have a system in place that forces used games to be unplayable past the first owner. That said, it's not clear that Sony will actively get in the way if publishers (including, perhaps, Sony itself in some cases) want to prevent resale with some kind of online registration check or force pre-owned players to pay an "unlock fee" of some sort.

We're still trying hard not to read too much into Sony's lack of clarity on this matter, and we hope that all this speculation will seem silly by the time the PS4 comes out. That said, it seems that Sony, and potential PS4 owners, aren't actually out of the woods yet.

Latest Ars Video >

War Stories | Ultima Online: The virtual ecology

When creating Ultima Online, Richard Garriott had grand dreams. He and Starr Long planned on implementing a virtual ecology into their massively multiplayer online role-playing game. It was an ambitious system, one that would have cows that graze and predators that eat herbivores. However, once the game went live a small problem had arisen...

War Stories | Ultima Online: The virtual ecology

War Stories | Ultima Online: The virtual ecology

When creating Ultima Online, Richard Garriott had grand dreams. He and Starr Long planned on implementing a virtual ecology into their massively multiplayer online role-playing game. It was an ambitious system, one that would have cows that graze and predators that eat herbivores. However, once the game went live a small problem had arisen...

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

86 Reader Comments

I'd imagine that the "online pass" business model is the one that will persist, and no RFID on-disc locking mechanism will exist. So they don't want to make promises for 3rd party publishers to keep, but still want to maintain that there's no absolute block to used discs.

I'd imagine that the "online pass" business model is the one that will persist, and no RFID on-disc locking mechanism will exist. So they don't want to make promises for 3rd party publishers to keep, but still want to maintain that there's no absolute block to used discs.

I think the always online DRM model of Diablo 3, Sim City 5, and MMOs will be the model of choice. Publishers love having control, and always online DRM gives them tons of it.

ScifiGeek wrote:

I bet they are waiting on what Microsoft does. They will both end up doing the same thing on this.

I kinda disagree. If MS has a console that must be online at all times to even work I don't think Sony will follow their lead in that direction. Sony has always given publishers more leeway in how they operate than MS. Things like letting publishers use kb/m controls in their games, voice chat or text chat, even 56k vs mandatory broadband during the ps2/Xbox era, etc.

IMO Sony will leave it up to publishers where as MS is likely to have a one size fits all approach.

It used to be that the console makers generated buzz by teasing us with the specs; playing coy with what exclusives they would have at launch. Now they're baiting us with "maybe we'll give you the shaft, maybe we won't." And that's all they're giving us.

I'm no marketing or PR expert, but I don't think they're doing it right.

If an "unlock pass" for used games turns out to be the case, I hope Ars will publish an examination of the relative profit for Sony and the third party publisher of new vs. used + unlock sales. I've never participated in the used game market, either selling or buying, but if publishers decide to force this kind of thing down our throats I'll be happy to decide in turn to buy used games instead of new ones if that results in less profit for them. Assuming I decide to buy the game (or even the console) at all.

It's likely not been settled internally. Obviously they've been looking into blocking used games, and I'm confident there are significant external (and internal) pressures to do this. I'd be amazed if they have this settled yet; even the original statement was wishy-washy and came only after cajoling.

Sony's not known for their strong top-down management direction, I'm sure there's still infighting happening, and they probably got some nasty calls from influential partners after Yoshida's comments. If you had, for example, EA threatening to drop the platform if it wasn't done, or at least throw a lot more console exclusive-deals to Microsoft as a result, well...That might give them real pause.

Surely they're still working with providers on some compromise, anyway - more significant always-on DRM or online passes or something. That may be part of the internal debate.

I'm sure they're aware of the focus and negative attention on this issue, but they've never been particularly pro-consumer; they'll do what they think they can get away with if they think it will make more money.

And sad thing is that it's unlikely it really will make (much) more money; used games are part of the ecosystem. A used sale != lost new sale.

And it could be a very (very!) significant competitive advantage. If XBox is blocking used games, they could probably clean up with hardcore and even casual gamers by not doing the same and making it a selling point. On the other hand, if they do it and Microsoft doesn't (and Nintendo already isn't), it'd be death for the PS4. That might be one of the things they're waiting to hear/debate on.

I don't see an out right blocking of used games, but if that were the case this will easily be the first Sony console I haven't bought. I'm not as tied to consoles as I used to be, and won't think twice about taking my gaming elsewhere if Sony, Microsoft, or anyone else tries to pull this. Mobile gaming is making huge strides, and many of those games are scratching many itches. And hell, I have a 20 year catalogue of missed PC games to catch up on as well.

Given all Yoshida's hemming and hawing and weasel wording ('can') it's obviously physically possible but I would guess you can set the DRM rights per title. Think Android permissions in reverse. 'Can run without disk in drive', 'Up to N simultaneous registrations' 'Registration can be moved', 'Requires online', etc. You could even change it in the future like lock it down tight for a month, then relax, like Ubisoft has done with their PC games. Not hard to do as long as you design it up front and provide the API, much harder later.

I'm no marketing or PR expert, but I don't think they're doing it right.

This is still a step up from PS3 launch, where Sony execs were so arrogant they were outright saying that they could put the console out with no games at all and people would still buy it, because Sony.

Just to be clear, I'm not inclined to buy a console that does not accept used games. I'm not inclined to (knowingly) buy a game that goes out of its way to make it hard for me to resale a console game.

For me personally, impeding used games (in some capacity) is a much smaller sin than not enabling backward compatibility. I have literally dozens of games I've spent years building up on my PlayStation library, and they keep not working on subsequent generational hardware. It annoyed me on the PS3, and it's unforgivable on the PS4.

But with used games, I can at least see the argument from the other side: publishers are losing out on a lot of revenue in the current model, with Gamestop swooping in and essentially cashing in on their hard work. It's theoretically good for consumers in our current model, but it's also likely led to the rise of DLC you have to pay for, among other issues.

I think a better solution would be for Gamestop to step up and establish some type of model where they share a (very) small percentage of used game sales with the publishers. Gamestop can keep selling used games, gamers get to keep buying used games, and publishers get a small cut to do with as they see fit - hopefully by reinvesting that money back into R&D for new games.

After all of the talk on this topic, and the speculation over Microsoft's console doing the same, I have to admit that I'm probably going to avoid both of their new platforms. While the entire streaming older PSX/PS2/PS3 titles still leaves me cold due to the unknown factor of how much bandwith it would require (read: Remember folks even Comcast has a 250GB cap each month) this I feel is much worse. And who's to say that Sony may not require special "Sony approved" hard drives or whatever storage they are using for the PS4 like Microsoft did on the 360? I mean, the frigging thing is already got close integration with the Vita why not take it all the way and also require a proprietary hard drive?

In an odd way Nintendo may actually have a leg up on Sony/Microsoft this generation for this issue alone. Granted, they're no angels with their oddball handling of digital purchases on their system but at least they've not built into the system some way to prevent you from playing disc-based titles used or otherwise.

Honestly, if this trend continues for the mainline consoles I'll probably stop buying consoles alltogether. I mean one of the things I always loved was being able to go back and play older titles on systems that have come and gone and Sony/Microsoft seem to be dead-set on killing this once and for all and that saddens me greatly. Who the hell wants to buy a $60 game that's only good as long as the company will allow you to play it?

I've already got a PC that handles digital purchases much better than these dedicated boxes and the cost of the software is WAY cheaper. Sure the system is more expensive and fiddly but at least I'll not have to worry about paying $60 for a game that's only good for that particular system. And for those of you getting ready to beat on your "Steam sucks" drum even if they went all "EVIL EMPIRE" like some of you claim they are there are still places like GOG.com where I can still enjoy many older titles and all without the worry of DRM. Try doing that on your console and see how far you get. ^_^

actually, when pressed to clarify his statements, Yoshida backtracked and muddled his comments further. the bottom line is Sony is trying to be vague. They want to see what Microsoft is going to do. If Microsoft goes anti-used games, Sony will quickly follow. Remember, both wanted to implement anti-used games with the 360 and PS3 but chickened out at the last moment. If Microsoft is not anti-used games, Sony will be forced to not be anti-used games as well. No one wants to be one without a partner when the music plays.

My bet: they're going to try to remain deliberately unclear until they know what Microsoft is doing.

If only one "next gen" console blocks used games, I expect the market to notice. If both PS and XBox block them, I expect a certain class of gamer to "suck it up" and accept it. But I guess they've got to be careful about being seen to cooperate on such an anti-consumer measure.

I'd imagine that the "online pass" business model is the one that will persist, and no RFID on-disc locking mechanism will exist. So they don't want to make promises for 3rd party publishers to keep, but still want to maintain that there's no absolute block to used discs.

I think the always online DRM model of Diablo 3, Sim City 5, and MMOs will be the model of choice. Publishers love having control, and always online DRM gives them tons of it.

Well, there's danger there. Microsoft has historically sold the XBox into regions that don't have full XBox Live support. They still support players without broadband connections, even if they are second-class citizens. And one of the reasons they can be so free with banning people from XBox Live is, today, that only impacts services delivered by XBox Live -- local and LAN play both still typically work fine for banned consoles and users.

That said, I'm certainly not sure that you're wrong. I hope you're wrong, but wouldn't place bets either way right now.

Just to be clear, I'm not inclined to buy a console that does not accept used games. I'm not inclined to (knowingly) buy a game that goes out of its way to make it hard for me to resale a console game.

I hear you. Myself, I will not buy a console of this sort if it requires an always-on network connection even to play simple single-player games. Period. If the box shuts down completely when I turn off wifi, there won't be one in my house.

(I say "of this sort" because I'd *consider* stuff like OnLive, given a dirt cheap "thin client" console. I don't have anything like that yet, but I'd consider it.)

And if they've got some way to block used games sales without an internet connection... I'd love to hear how that works.

Sony won't say anything until Xbox does, but they'll both block used games.

As much as people in forums think that if one company blocks used games, the other won't doesn't understand who wants this. It's the publishers, not Microsoft/Sony. If you refuse to block used games on your console, you lose all AAA titles from Actiblizzard and EA and Ubisoft. Most of the people here will say "good riddance", but the market at large ($$$) disagrees with you.

Sony just doesn't want the story to be how THEY plan to block used games for 4 weeks while microsoft eventually ends up doing the same thing.

As much as people in forums think that if one company blocks used games, the other won't doesn't understand who wants this. It's the publishers, not Microsoft/Sony. If you refuse to block used games on your console, you lose all AAA titles from Actiblizzard and EA and Ubisoft.

You do not think there's even a *chance* that, if it's *also* the case that neither console has backwards compatibility, consumers will reject the console that blocks used games, and publishers will then be forced to support the platform that permits them in order to reach customers? You think the publishers have *all* the power, and consumers have *none*?

(If there's really no chance of that, then the market is really really messed up, and I could see antitrust action happening as a result.)

I actually don't buy many used games but I DO love to sell the terrible ones.

Can you imagine being stuck with a game like L.A. Noire for life? I know it took a lot of science and dedication on the part of the developers to convert a dog turd into its raw binary value and burn it onto a disc but I didn't appreciate the resulting product. I did enjoy selling it back to Amazon after a couple weeks for $5-10 less than I bought it for.

You do not think there's even a *chance* that, if it's *also* the case that neither console has backwards compatibility, consumers will reject the console that blocks used games, and publishers will then be forced to support the platform that permits them in order to reach customers? You think the publishers have *all* the power, and consumers have *none*?

(If there's really no chance of that, then the market is really really messed up, and I could see antitrust action happening as a result.)

people will follow the games. if there's no battlefield 15 or call of duty 57, they won't buy the machine.

people complained about online passes. thought the fury would shut that down. but yet the games kept selling great.

people complained about lack of backward compatibility. but over time, people forgot about it and turned all the arguments upside down by later arguing things like "why would you want to play old games" or "getting rid of backward compatibility helps the console be cheaper".

I bet they are waiting on what Microsoft does. They will both end up doing the same thing on this.

Less likely that they'll do exactly the same thing, but they want MS to announce their "always on, no used games" system and take the heat for it, and then they can come along later and quietly announce their less draconian publisher specific system.

However, with the track record of the PS3, my concern is that it initially won't block used games--it would cause too much backlash--but they'll add that as a 'security feature' in a future firmware update once they have reached a large install base.

I will never purchase a console that limits used(loaned/out-of-print/etc) games, just as I will never purchase a game that requires always-online DRM to function. These are liberties which I am not willing to give up. I have one or two Online Pass games, and I find those insulting enough. If need be, I'll leave this circus all together. There's plenty enough classic games to entertain me until the day I die. PS4, who needs it? (hoping that they see sense. I may be game for one more console cycle)

I don't much care whether there's a massive backlash or not. /My/ decision is not going to change. If it supports secondhand sales, and I do not need to have an always online, or even frequently online, connection to play the games then I will probably buy a PS4. Otherwise, I won't.

Note: I only buy secondhand for console if the pc version is released with unacceptable DRM or mandatory clients like Steam/Origin.

This is really incredibly simple. If PS4 was supporting playing second-hand games with no restrictions, they would have said so. Since they didn't, it means that there will be "issues" on that subject. They seem to be trying to shift the blame over to the game publishers by vaguely hinting that it would be up to them to decide to use it or not.

If, hypothetically, only one of the two consoles would end up blocking used games, I still believe that the likes of EA and Activision would not hesitate to completely destroy the one that doesn't by making their major games exclusives on the other. They will not care if this initially gives them less money, because once one of the consoles is gone, Dreamcast style, then they can do literally whatever they want on the surviving one. Sony already has enough trouble with PS Vita, they really cannot afford another console without games at this point.

For me, any console that has any of the following is an automatic no-buy: (a) always online DRM, (b) blocked used games, (c) mandatory Kinect-style sensor monitoring me constantly. It's quite sad that it's come to this, but enough is enough. One can only take so much crap from the corporations. Maybe it would be the best if both consoles tank, but knowing a typical customer, this will probably not happen.

And before you ask, yes I do sometimes buy games on Steam, but the difference is: there I pay about $5 for a game as opposed to what they cost on consoles (and they rarely/never go as far down in price as they do on Steam sales).

I actually don't buy many used games but I DO love to sell the terrible ones.

Can you imagine being stuck with a game like L.A. Noire for life? I know it took a lot of science and dedication on the part of the developers to convert a dog turd into its raw binary value and burn it onto a disc but I didn't appreciate the resulting product. I did enjoy selling it back to Amazon after a couple weeks for $5-10 less than I bought it for.

Don't take that ability away from me Sony.

Haha, that's a good point. If I wasn't able to sell back games like Aliens vs. Predator (by Sega...never buy Sega) and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2 (biggest let down ever), I might have given up on gaming all together. Those games were worse investments than my Neo Geo Pocket. Which still haunts me twelve years later...

I already asked what value "next-generation" consoles will offer and I didn't get a single convincing answer from anyone.

What are we getting with PS4?

8-core CPU and graphics that will be obsolete by the time of launch, custom operating system, inability to run existing PC games, inability to play PS2 and PS3 games (except through streaming from PlayStation Cloud so good luck if you have bad Internet connection or if you can't prove you own those games), DRM on Blu-Ray playback, and now even the possibility of not being able to play used games.

What is Sony getting with PS4?

Cheap, mass-produced, commodity x86 hardware, more people buying and playing new games because they can't play their old ones, more revenue if they force you to pay unlock fee for used games.

I could understand appeal of consoles before, but for the life of me I can't figure out why people would keep buying into their walled garden today? What is the advantage of having a "next generation" console when it doesn't offer anything more than a regular PC and when the game price is going to be the same as for the PC games?

Maybe disc lock-in will be built in, with the possibility of enabling it later, perhaps at the discretion of the game studio. Initial launch titles will be RFID- free, but after a healthy dose of consoles are sold, it gets introduced gradually. They need to get high attachment rates first and convince people to abandon the old consoles first. Considering how cut-down some used titles are already, it seems almost inevitable.

The Blu-Ray standard has protections built in that could lock a disc to a single device, has not yet been implemented, but who knows when. I would guess they will have the RFID tracking built in to the new discs and they may not implement it immediately, but it will always threaten. I would rather not even deal with the possibility.

My bottom line is simple. If I can rent and play games from Gamefly for the PS4, I'll buy a PS4, if I can't then I don't need a PS4. I am an avid game buyer on all platforms but 99% of my console purchases are from Gamefly's rent then keep if I like it. No demo, timed trial, or anything of that sort will be acceptable to me as an alternative.